Layers Of Apologetics

[muichimotsu]

We are all regarded as fallible.
We do not have to do anything.
There is no way anyone can become perfect.

The fallibility is universal to all human beings, it is not possible to fix it.

The external source we can choose to turn to on account of our fallibility does not remain only external, "it" can impact on us inside, in ways Christian people find to be positive.

All of these principles can be abused, and when they are the results are harmful.

As far as I am aware, abuse occurs in all religious belief systems, in atheist social groups, and also in mental health care. For that reason I regard the problem as a risk wherever people are, not something we can blame on theism or Christianity exclusively.

But the solution you offer in your view is that the Christian God can solve things, which is still regarded as an external thing, rather than trying to unify humans in some way that doesn't rely on obedience to a supernatural entity's commands

 

[MrsFoundit]

But the solution you offer

Solution to what?

rather than trying to unify humans in some way that doesn't rely on obedience to a supernatural entity's commands

Do you have a suggestion?

 

[muichimotsu]

Solution to what?

Human frailty, the question of what comes after death, any sort of philosophical questions we have (what's the meaning of life is another common one)

Do you have a suggestion?

Compassion, common humanity in our experiences of suffering and happiness, there's a start that doesn't require anything supernatural to present the compelling nature of something that is universal to the human condition, practically speaking

 

[MrsFoundit]

Human frailty, the question of what comes after death, any sort of philosophical questions we have (what's the meaning of life is another common one)

I am all for teaching philosophy, and encouraging people to explore these questions.

Compassion, common humanity in our experiences of suffering and happiness, there's a start that doesn't require anything supernatural to present the compelling nature of something that is universal to the human condition, practically speaking

Yes, we need a universally applicable sense of compassion and humanity. Philosophical and pragmatic arguments supporting this can be very strong, independent of anything supernatural.

 

[muichimotsu]

I am all for teaching philosophy, and encouraging people to explore these questions.



Yes, we need a universally applicable sense of compassion and humanity. Philosophical and pragmatic arguments supporting this can be very strong, independent of anything supernatural.

Of course we should explore the questions, but concluding we have even a remotely conclusive answer is dangerous territory

If the explanations don't require the supernatural, what use does it serve in any sense?

 

[MrsFoundit]

Of course we should explore the questions, but concluding we have even a remotely conclusive answer is dangerous territory

So personal conclusions as to the answers cannot be imposed on others, problem solved.

 

[MrsFoundit]

If the explanations don't require the supernatural, what use does it serve in any sense?

For the purpose of establishing a "universally applicable" sense of compassion and humanity, it does not need to serve a use, obviously.

 

[muichimotsu]

So personal conclusions as to the answers cannot be imposed on others, problem solved.

So Christian evangelism would be arguably problematic in that it's claiming one must believe as another does for their "salvation", right?

 

[muichimotsu]

For the purpose of establishing a "universally applicable" sense of compassion and humanity, it does not need to serve a use, obviously.

If it's merely about the means and not the end, the supernatural would still seem unnecessary except to satisfy some need for "wonder", which still doesn't require that

 

[MrsFoundit]

So Christian evangelism would be arguably problematic in that it's claiming one must believe as another does for their "salvation", right?

In any "universally applicable sense of humanity and compassion" many things would be "arguably problematic". We would need to agree as to what constitutes "imposition on others" to resolve this.

If Christian evangelism was deemed a problem purely on account of the notion among Christians that their concepts are applicable to all people, we would need to forbid all beliefs that are regarded as applicable to all people. Atheism would be problematic, because non-belief in deities is deemed to apply to all people, and therefore one must be either an atheist or a deluded person. Deism would also be an issue, because they do not believe anyone at all can interact with the Supreme Being, it is not just deists who cannot in their opinion.

Obliterating freedom of world view in such a manner is not my idea of humane or compassionate. The commonality among humans of having a world view and the passion with which people often express their world view, indicates to me that any appeal to a "universally applicable sense of humanity and compassion" would require freedom of world view, not oppression of world view.

 

[muichimotsu]

In any "universally applicable sense of humanity and compassion" many things would be "arguably problematic". We would need to agree as to what constitutes "imposition on others" to resolve this.

If Christian evangelism was deemed a problem purely on account of the notion among Christians that their concepts are applicable to all people, we would need to forbid all beliefs that are regarded as applicable to all people. Atheism would be problematic, because non-belief in deities is deemed to apply to all people, and therefore one must be either an atheist or a deluded person. Deism would also be an issue, because they do not believe anyone at all can interact with the Supreme Being, it is not just deists who cannot in their opinion.

Obliterating freedom of world view in such a manner is not my idea of humane or compassionate. The commonality among humans of having a world view and the passion with which people often express their world view, indicates to me that any appeal to a "universally applicable sense of humanity and compassion" would require freedom of world view, not oppression of world view.

Not sure I was insinuating atheism was the source of compassion anyway, that's almost non sequitur to my point. The beliefs themselves are not the issue so much as the source of justification for them.

I'm not opposing the world view in the sense of being able to hold it, but I'm saying that they aren't necessarily held rationally and that's a standard we should apply as much as possible to worldviews in general, Chrisitanity just happens to be more common in he manifestation of irrationality.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Not sure I was insinuating atheism was the source of compassion anyway, that's almost non sequitur to my point. The beliefs themselves are not the issue so much as the source of justification for them.

I did not mean to suggest you were personally advocating atheism. My point is freedom of world view would be a fundamental necessity to any universally applicable standard for compassion and common humanity. I used "world view" deliberately to include non-religion as an option.

I am not sure how the requisite freedom could apply if we restricted it on the basis of source of justification, or how to agree about the basis of rationality. I would lean towards limiting actions rather than belief.

I do believe we have established a worthwhile goal here, I may not be smart enough to actually present a workable standard.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't disagree that freedom of belief is important, the question becomes how important it is in relation to other things I'd also argue are pretty important

Restricting belief isn't what I'm advocating, but criticizing those beliefs freely, versus what some people seem to advocate, which is more about being polite rather than caring about the truth.

I'm not pretending I have a perfect standard either, the question is whether Christianity can be said to have the benefits it claims even in the present, let alone those that I would imagine a Christian doesn't claim they have substantive evidence for, more that their faith is the evidence in s sense

 

[MrsFoundit]

I'm not pretending I have a perfect standard either, the question is whether Christianity can be said to have the benefits it claims even in the present, let alone those that I would imagine a Christian doesn't claim they have substantive evidence for, more that their faith is the evidence in s sense

There are laws in the UK which I believe do not exist in the USA, or maybe not in some States. It is illegal for any religious leader, or healthcare worker, to claim to be able to change a persons sexual orientation. It is based on evidence of risk of harm, but no evidence any such change can be achieved.

It is also illegal for anyone who offers faith or spiritual healing services to claim or suggest in publicity that they can cure any condition, unless they have support for such a claim from the medical profession.

We can believe in the flying spaghetti monster, that disabled people are tragic and a shame (I am lifelong disabled, and pitying me will not impress me, try to "cure" me and I call a lawyer to report assault), and that our own offspring's homework is the inerrant word of the Ultra-god. False advertising and religious claims for non-existent, non-necessary and potentially harmful "cures" are not met with legal tolerance.

I do not mean everything is perfect around here.

Is this the sort of issues you are disturbed about?

 

[muichimotsu]

There are laws in the UK which I believe do not exist in the USA, or maybe not in some States. It is illegal for any religious leader, or healthcare worker, to claim to be able to change a persons sexual orientation. It is based on evidence of risk of harm, but no evidence any such change can be achieved.

It is also illegal for anyone who offers faith or spiritual healing services to claim or suggest in publicity that they can cure any condition, unless they have support for such a claim from the medical profession.

We can believe in the flying spaghetti monster, that disabled people are tragic and a shame (I am lifelong disabled, and pitying me will not impress me, try to "cure" me and I call a lawyer to report assault), and that our own offspring's homework is the inerrant word of the Ultra-god. False advertising and religious claims for non-existent, non-necessary and potentially harmful "cures" are not met with legal tolerance.

I do not mean everything is perfect around here.

Is this the sort of issues you are disturbed about?

Conversion therapy is slowly being banned in various states, which is encouraging, not sure on the more general example you gave about "faith healing" and such, though I think there are legal areas that would address that

That's certainly one problem that can come about, but someone holding false beliefs even if they behave ethically is still concerning to me in the sense that they believe that truth is not as important as their self satisfaction and comfort about existential questions, which gets into a parallel of drug abuse (opiates in particular)

 

[MrsFoundit]

That's certainly one problem that can come about, but someone holding false beliefs even if they behave ethically is still concerning to me in the sense that they believe that truth is not as important as their self satisfaction and comfort about existential questions, which gets into a parallel of drug abuse (opiates in particular)

Well yes, religion can be used or abused for escapism, but I cannot myself see how we could solve that with a universal moral paradigm. It is not a solution to human weaknesses and vulnerability. Some people get comfort out of being extremely logical and rational, others get comfort from fantasy, others rely on greed and luxury.

I am all for warning people opiates are dangerous. In my own country it is neglect of a local economy that seems most to blame, not escapist varieties of religion. We could do something about the major drug companies, but I am now off topic.

 

[muichimotsu]

The moral paradigm would have a more foundational aspect of critical thought and reason that solves human weaknesses in that we don't seek perfection, but improvement in a general sense

I meant opiate in the metaphorical sense of addiction to something that is illusory in the solution it provides

 

[MrsFoundit]

The moral paradigm would have a more foundational aspect of critical thought and reason that solves human weaknesses in that we don't seek perfection, but improvement in a general sense

Interesting idea. I certainly do not like claims of perfection, but I am not sure that aiming high is a problem for everyone.

I meant opiate in the metaphorical sense of addiction to something that is illusory in the solution it provides

I am stuck for how this harmonises with freedom of world view?

 

[muichimotsu]

Aiming high is distinct from holding unrealistic standards of what is high in the first place

And freedom of action and beliefs should both be constrained within reason to the context: freedom to hold a wrong belief should be tempered by critical thought and criticism of those beliefs by others